James Scouller's Blog, page 12

A Brief Look At Charismatic Leadership

The purpose of this short article is to give you a bite-sized insight into charismatic leadership.  So what is charismatic leadership?

It’s the name given to a particular leadership style – in other words, it describes the behaviour of a certain category of leaders.

The term “charismatic leadership” draws on the word “charisma”, which comes from the Greek language and means “gift”.

Thus, charismatic leadership relies on a leader’s personality gifts to influence others and shape their future.  Such gifts can include great wisdom or insight, heroism, extraordinary certainty about the future and perhaps even the claim of a direct link to God.

However, charismatic leadership demands more than just an exceptional personality.

Followers & Charismatic Leadership

You see, those who follow the charismatic leader must also project an image of specialness and authority on to him and give him power over them.

Therefore charismatic leadership relies on the twin effect of a leader’s personality and a strong belief by followers that this special person is the one to lead them in their hour of need.

This is why the sociologist Max Weber saw charismatic leadership as a relationship between leader and followers.

Charismatic Leadership & The Moral Dimension

In Weber’s view, charismatic leadership had no moral dimension – it could be a force for good or evil.

Using his definition, the only question is: do the followers grant authority to the leader based on their view of his or her special gifts?  If the answer is yes, this is charismatic leadership.

So although this may horrify many, in Weber’s eyes, Adolf Hitler was as much a charismatic leader as Jesus Christ.

Dangers of Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership can be effective in the sense that it can cause swift change.  However it has dangers.

It can be used for evil ends.
It can create dependency among followers – causing them to take less responsibility for themselves.
It can encourage a belief in the leader’s infallibility to the point where the leader is allowed to make foolish decisions.
And it can take followers down a blind alley if the seemingly charismatic leader proves to have more style than substance.

Charismatic Leadership, Instability & Personality Cults

Despite these dangers, charismatic leadership can be unstable and short lived.

This is because charismatic leaders can only stay in power while their followers continue to believe in their specialness.  If they disappoint their followers in some way, perhaps because they reveal previously hidden flaws or fail to deliver, this belief can fade – draining charismatic leaders of their authority.

To guard against this risk, charismatic leadership may involve a cult of personality to stop followers realising that their leader is less impressive than they think.

 

The author of this blog is James Scouller, an executive coach.  His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published by Management Books 2000 in May 2011.  You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com.  If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews.  If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE.

Leadership, Culture Change and the NHS

This is my longest article since I started the blog two years ago.  That’s because it’s dealing with a tough, complex subject – how to change the culture and performance of the NHS following the recent spate of scandals and the hundreds of unnecessary deaths in mid-Staffordshire.

Background

If you’re not British or living in the UK you might not know what the NHS is or why it’s hitting the headlines right now.  So let me explain.  The National Health Service (NHS) – launched in the UK in 1948 and funded by taxation – offers free medical treatment at the point of delivery.  So for example if you go to a NHS hospital for surgery, you won’t have to pay.  But the NHS is caught in a scandal that’s hitting the headlines and isn’t going away.

At a mid-Staffordshire hospital, investigators found there’d been hundreds more patient deaths than there should have been.  Behind this, they uncovered a disturbing lack of patient care.  This led to a public enquiry.  Its report came out earlier last month:

It described years of abuse and neglect by hospital staff which, it said, caused the unnecessary deaths.
It found that hospitals had ignored patients’ complaints and that doctors, nurses and managers knew there were problems, but hadn’t spoken up.  We now know the few who tried to speak up were kept quiet by gagging orders.
It said corporate self-interest and cost control had been more important than patients and their safety.
Finally, it called for “fundamental culture change” and made 290 recommendations.

Other reports have said the mid-Staffordshire events aren’t isolated, that “there’s a pervasive culture of fear in the NHS”; that “virtually everyone is looking up (to satisfy an inspector or manager) rather than looking out (to satisfy patients and their families)”.

Media commentators had a field day:

Most couldn’t understand why no one had lost their job.
Two high-profile politicians on the radio expressed their amazement that senior managers, doctors and nurses hadn’t recognised “the demands of professional integrity”, realised it was “their duty to act as whistleblowers” and spoken up.
The UK Health Secretary said there’d been a culture of celebrating success in the NHS while not being open about failure.
Newspapers referred to NHS managers’ obsession with chasing targets set by the government at the expense of patient care and openness.  One memorable quote was “a culture of hitting the target but missing the point”.
And one previously gagged whistleblower (a former hospital CEO) said he was forced out because he put patient safety ahead of government targets.

Articles continue to appear most days in British newspapers calling for the central CEO’s removal and an NHS culture that (1) puts the interests of patients first (2) allows NHS staff to flag up mistakes and failures while (3) becoming ever more efficient.

But the question is, does anyone in power know how to achieve such culture change?  So far, I’m not sure they do.

Catch-22

Just as important, isn’t the latest report creating a Catch-22?

You see, UK governments have tried for years to improve NHS performance by setting nationwide targets.  The targets are so ingrained that meeting them is now the NHS’s priority.

But everyone’s saying they want a culture that encourages whistleblowing.  Yet hospital staff still believe that if they speak out about failures or question the targets they’ll lose their job and get a bad reference.  So while the top-down target setting approach continues and the fear of losing their job if they speak up remains, calling for a more open culture is like asking people to plunge into a pool full of crocodiles.

Thoughts

I’m not suggesting I have a ready-made solution to what’s a complex problem, but here are six thoughts that may point a way forward:

Thought #1

Every organisation (including a hospital) needs a sense of direction, of destination, if it’s to perform well year after year.  Why?  Because most people respond to a vision of what together they’re trying to become or achieve; one that motivates or – better still – inspires them.  After all, who wants to work for long in an organisation that’s got no drive to become more (whether that’s better or different) than it is today?

If people know what they’re aiming to accomplish together and why it’s important – and they feel it matters to them – they’ll give everything they’ve got.  But organisations lacking a shared motivating vision aren’t going to inspire people to give their best.  High performing organisations therefore start with an inspiring – or at least a motivating – vision and then set targets as short-term markers on the way to the destination.  Note that: vision comes before targets.

Now ask yourself, who decides whether the vision is motivating or even inspirational?  The answer is the people who have to achieve it.

With these insights we’re now perhaps getting a glimpse of what’s going wrong.

First, an outside organisation (the government in this case) is imposing targets without a compelling, inspirational vision.  So they’re just targets.  Worse, they are targets set by people who don’t have to achieve them, which means there’s no guarantee the NHS staff agree with them and find them inspiring.  Remember, the people who decide whether targets are motivating are the ones who have to achieve them – not the people who set them.

So in my view, the British government is overreaching.  It’s assumed that if it imposes performance targets from the centre it will give every hospital the all-important sense of purpose and vision it needs.  But although an inspiring vision can drive effective target setting, target setting doesn’t necessarily create a motivating sense of direction.  In other words, the government has put the cart before the horse.

The solution?  Why not put the horse back in front of the cart (vision first, targets after) and let the people who have to deliver decide what they should be?

Thus, you could allow the local operating units to decide their vision of their future and then set their own performance goals.  After all, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries are there to care for their patients, so surely their leaders can create a vision that’s not just inspirational, but downright noble.

Thought #2

Some might react to what I’m suggesting by saying, “But surely that means the standard of patient care will vary around the country depending on what each hospital or NHS trust is emphasising.”  My answer to that would be yes, but so what if the standards of patient care are demonstrably rising?

The fact is that organisations are run by people – and people differ.  You are not going to have uniformity.  Yes, you can impose certain minimum standards, but you don’t have to insist on sameness.  The attempt to drive sameness only stifles initiative, creativity and individuality.

Thought #3

Does my suggestion of local vision and target setting mean the NHS central staff or the government have no role?  No.

But in my view they shouldn’t be setting specific targets.  They can certainly suggest broad areas of emphasis.  Perhaps they should also set certain minimum standards of performance and make sure the local leaders are equipped to lead.  But that should be it.

Thought #4

There are many articles in the newspapers and discussions on TV and radio about the culture of the NHS and how it’s got to change following this scandal.  But how do you change an organisation’s culture?

Well, once you know what you want your organisation to become (the vision), you first have to understand what its existing culture is.  At its root, it’s simply the beliefs shared by the people in that organisation around what’s important there to survive and do well career-wise.  These beliefs then shape norms of behaviour, which is why you will often hear culture defined as “the way we do things round here”.

So if you want to change an organisation’s culture you have to change what people believe matters most if they are to survive, prosper and feel good about the work they’re doing.

Thought #5

How do you get that culture change – that change of beliefs and behavioural norms?

Well, I’d start by understanding what the current culture is.

In other words, I’d want to understand what beliefs and values are truly driving people’s behaviour in that hospital or surgery.  I don’t mean the beliefs and values they’d like to hold or they say they hold; I mean the beliefs and values they really hold – the ones controlling the behavioural norms.  And to do that I think you’ve got to get among the employees, ask questions and listen until you’ve understood what you’re dealing with.  The key is to understand your starting point.

Okay, so let’s assume you know the starting point.  What now?  How do you begin changing the prevailing beliefs so they support the vision you and your colleagues have set for your organisation?

Where does any culture change begin?  It starts with a few people (probably less than 10) expressing new beliefs and then it ripples outward.  This is where leadership is so important.  You need a small group of leaders who understand the importance of an inspirational vision and who, through their example, can cause others to join them in creating the first wave of change.

To be clear, you don’t have to change everyone’s beliefs at the start.  You just have to change a critical mass of people’s beliefs.  What’s a “critical mass”?  How long is a piece of string?  It depends.  It’s whatever’s enough to get change going.  It could be 5%, 10% of the people or 25%. But it’s not 100%.

So if you haven’t got a few senior people in a hospital or an NHS trust who can do this, you will either have to help them change – and as an executive coach I’d suggest coaching is probably the most powerful means of change, but then I would, wouldn’t I? – or you’ll have to replace them with people who can.

After that, the key is to have this “hard core” group find others in the organisation of like mind and together they can start to positively change the organisation’s DNA.  That way, gradually, change ripples outwards.

However, if the new beliefs are to translate into performance and results, it’s essential that members of the leadership group don’t just talk a good game, but demonstrate the behaviours and values they say are important to achieving the vision in their everyday actions.

This includes facing facts and recognising what’s not working; regarding “failure” and “mistakes” not as a mortal blows to their self-esteem, but as signs they need to change something.   It’s no good telling themselves everything is okay when it isn’t – for if this group of wayshowers can’t admit the emperor has nothing on when he’s stark naked, everyone else in the organisation will get the message.  And guess what?  They’ll start covering up the truth all over again.

Thought #6

If local NHS hospitals concentrate on creating a new culture founded on an inspiring vision with targets to match – and an attitude that candour comes before pride – imagine what will happen.  You won’t have to do what the NHS report recommends and create rules making it easier for whistleblowers to speak up and threatening punishment if they don’t.

Why?  Because whistleblowing won’t be “whistleblowing” any more as it won’t run against the grain and won’t demand extraordinary acts of courage.  Telling the truth will now be part of the culture – a culture of facing facts because everyone at the hospital will know what they want to become and what they want to achieve.  So speaking up will be as natural as, well, speaking.

In Conclusion…

So where does this leave us?

In my view, it means government has to stop overreaching and let local hospitals and NHS trusts define their visions of the future based on what they judge is important to them and their patients… and then set targets.

And it means we need people who know how to lead change in the local hospitals, who will set their egos aside, work together for a cause bigger than themselves and share leadership by setting the right example in their daily behaviour.

To be clear, this isn’t about having single heroic leaders to act as the catalyst for change.

Yes, of course you need capable CEOs.  But in my view the key at each hospital will always be a small group of influential like-minded people – perhaps orchestrated at first by one of them – deciding together that they want change and then figuring out what that change looks like.  And from there, inspiring others to care as much about the vision and targets as they do by their actions.  In other words, not “top-down” but “small group outwards”.

And the role of the centre?  It would still be crucial, but different to what it is today.  For me, it’s to set the context for such change, perhaps by insisting on certain minimum standards, but no more than that.  Its other role is to make sure the trusts and hospitals have people who know how to lead – whether they’re managers, doctors or nurses – and are willing to cooperate as leaders.

 

The author of this blog is James Scouller, an executive coach.  His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published by Management Books 2000 in May 2011.  You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com.  If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews.  If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE.

Leadership Styles Quickly Explained

The term “leadership styles” is often used interchangeably with “leadership models”.  However, for me, leadership styles are different from leadership models.  I see “leadership styles” as referring to descriptions of the ways in which real-life leaders behave… whereas leadership models are ideas about how to be effective in action as a leader.

Seven Leadership Styles

So what are the main leadership styles?  Into the category of leadership styles, I’d put:

Transformational leadership
Transactional leadership
Charismatic leadership
Narcissistic leadership
Authoritarian (or Autocratic) leadership
Participative (or Democratic) leadership
Delegative (or Laissez-Faire) leadership

Here are quick (60 second) summaries of each leadership style.  If you are interested you can find more detailed descriptions on the Businessballs Leadership Theory page here.

Transformational Leadership

This is probably the most admired of the leadership styles.  Why?  Because the transformational leader makes the right things happen.

It was James MacGregor Burns who first described this style of leadership.  The transformational leader taps into his people’s needs and values, inspires them with new possibilities and raises their confidence, conviction and desire to achieve a common, moral purpose.

Of the seven leadership styles, transformational leadership stands out for being centred on a long-term, high moral purpose.

Transactional Leadership

This is a leadership style that’s common in politics.  The leader gets a follower to act in a certain way in return for something the latter wants to have or to avoid.  So, for example, the politician may offer tax cuts in exchange for votes.

It’s less likely to achieve major change than transformational leadership as the goals of transactional leaders are less ambitious, by definition.

Charismatic Leadership

Perhaps the most high-profile of the leadership styles.  Charismatic leaders rely on their personality gifts to influence people and shape their future.

However, charismatic leadership demands more than just a remarkable personality.  The followers must also project an image of specialness and authority on to the leader and give him power over them.

What this means is that charismatic leadership relies on the twin effect of a leader’s personality plus a strong belief by followers that this special person is the one to lead them in their hour of need.

If you’d like to read more about this leadership style elsewhere in my blog, just click this link: A Brief Look at Charismatic Leadership.

Narcissistic Leadership

Of the seven leadership styles, this one only came to public attention around the turn of the 21st century following articles and books by various authors.

Narcissistic Leadership simply refers to leadership by a narcissist and the co-dependent relationship it involves between the leader and his closest circle of followers.  Again, you can read more about this particular style elsewhere on this blog.

Authoritarian Leadership

This style (along with the Participative and Delegative styles) was first outlined by Kurt Lewin. It’s sometimes called the Autocratic style.

It’s where leaders spell out the goals, deadlines and methods while making decisions on their own without any or much consultation with others.  Here, the leader doesn’t usually get involved in the group’s work.

Not surprisingly, researchers have found you are less likely to see creative decisions under this style of leadership.  However, it’s a decisive way of leading and can suit high-risk, short-timescale decisions; the kind that surgical teams and fire crews have to take.

Participative Leadership

Sometimes called the Democratic style, it’s where the leader expresses his or her priorities and values in setting goals and making decisions, but also takes part in the group’s work and accepts advice and suggestions from colleagues.  However, the leader makes the final decision.

This style can produce more creative problem solving and innovation than the Authoritarian approach so it makes sense to adopt it in competitive, non-emergency situations.

Delegative Leadership

Also sometimes called the Laissez-Faire style, the leader hands over responsibility for results to the group. He or she lets them set goals, decide on work methods, define individuals’ roles and set their own pace of work.

It is very much a hands-off approach.  It can work well provided the group shares the same overall intent and direction as the leader and if he or she trusts all members of the group.  However, there is always a risk that individuals may become dissatisfied with their roles or the group’s goals and lose motivation.

 

The author of this blog is James Scouller, an executive coach.  His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published by Management Books 2000 in May 2011.  You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com.  If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews.  If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE.

Is Psychoanalysis The Answer To Limiting Beliefs?

After The Three Levels of Leadership came out in 2011, readers followed up with questions on leadership, leadership psychology and self-mastery – all of them interesting.  So interesting, in fact, that I’m releasing my answers here as they supplement the “Three Levels” material and others may find them useful.  Here’s the fourth in the series.   I’ll post the others over the coming months…

 Q4. Is Psychoanalysis the best way to deal with limiting beliefs? 

“Let’s start by getting our terms right.  Psychoanalysis is just one form of talking therapy.  In fact, it’s the original form of therapy developed by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago.  Since then, many schools of therapy have developed.  For example, Gestalt, Psychosynthesis, Cognitive-Behavioural, Person Centred, Solution Focused, Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy and so on.

So the question for me is, when you say “Psychoanalysis”, is that what you mean, or do you mean any kind of talking therapy?

If you are specifically talking about Psychoanalysis, then – and this is just my opinion – I would probably say no, it’s not the best way to deal with limiting beliefs.

Why?  Because psychoanalytic theory concentrates more on inner conflict.  By inner conflict, I mean the Ego’s struggle to reconcile the impulses of the Id (your basic desires and impulses) and the Superego’s tut-tutting (“you should do this”; “you shouldn’t do that”).  The idea of limiting beliefs and their effects on emotions and behaviour isn’t part of traditional psychoanalytic theory.

Now if you’re referring instead to the wider range of talking therapies, my answer would be different.  I’d say it depends on the therapist’s training.  Someone trained in the Cognitive Behavioural or Mindfulness-based Cognitive schools should be able to help you.  As would an executive coach trained in the principles and techniques of these schools.  But I’d say it’s just as important to work with someone who’s experienced in applying these techniques with leaders in organisations like yours – not only that, someone you trust and respect.

However, although it’s helpful as a leader to work with someone else (because they can more easily see your mental boxes than you), it’s not essential.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not easy to do this work on your own, but it’s possible.  And, indeed, eventually you’ll have to work on your own even if in the early days you work with a coach.  But if you choose to work on your own from the start, you can.  I’ve suggested a means of doing so in The Three Levels of Leadership – this is the Self-Enquiry technique I’ve explained in chapter 9.”

 

The author of this blog is James Scouller, an executive coach.  His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published by Management Books 2000 in May 2011.  You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com.  If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews.  If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

 After The Three Levels of Leadership came out in 2011, readers followed up with questions on leadership, leadership psychology and self-mastery – all of them interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I’m releasing my answers here as they supplement the “Three Levels” material and others may find them useful.  Here’s the third in the series.  I’ll post the others over the coming months…

 Q3. Are the characteristics of a leader already installed within ourselves or are they something we develop over time in our environment? 

This is like the classic question, “Are leaders born or made?”  The short answer is “both”, but research shows they’re much more “made” than “born”.  Let me explain…

Early Thinking

The original theory of leadership was the traits theory which said the best leaders share certain common innate character traits.  From this theory came the idea that “leaders are born not made”.

But researchers had a problem: they couldn’t agree what those common traits were.  Eventually, the list of qualities associated with good leaders became so long it was almost useless.  Scholars began to realise this from the 1940s onwards.  That’s when the idea lost favour and academics looked for other theories to explain what made leaders effective.

Genetics

Although the traits theory lost favour, it didn’t mean the “leaders are born not made” idea was dead.  After all, even if there isn’t a shortlist of common traits, it’s possible that whatever qualities are needed (even if they vary hugely between leaders) are inherited from parents – meaning they’d be present from birth.

Recent research has indeed shown that the basic “stuff” of being a leader is partly inherited.  For example, in a 2006 study*, genetic factors explained 30% of the difference between people who became leaders and those who didn’t.  [Important note: the study had nothing to say about whether genetics influence a leader’s effectiveness – it only looked at its role in influencing whether people reached leadership roles or not.]

But although leaders are partly born, it doesn’t mean leaders’ characteristics are “already installed” to use your words.  For a start, we can’t say for sure what those characteristics are!  Plus we know our genetic coding explains only 30% of why we do or don’t become leaders.  In other words, 30% of a person’s potential for leadership is inborn, which means 70% of the explanation lies elsewhere.

Other Reasons

But your question wasn’t just, “Are the characteristics of a leader already installed within ourselves?”  You added, “… or are they something we develop over time in our environment?”

Now I think many researchers would say the environment – especially your family background – explains the missing 70%.

I take a slightly different view.  I’d say yes, your circumstances are important, but they’re not the whole story.  What else shapes up-and-coming leaders?  First, their perceptions of their environment.  Second, how they approach their learning.

Perceptions, Beliefs & Self

Let’s be clear.  Your environment will influence the mental habits you develop over time.  So it’s bound to affect your growth and thus your likelihood of becoming a leader.

But – and this is crucial – what happens around you has no absolute meaning.  You see, the way you respond to events isn’t necessarily the way I’d respond to the same circumstances.  This is because no one responds to physical events – for example, the way people treat us.  Rather, we respond to how we perceive those events.  And our perceptions are driven by beliefs about ourselves and the world.  Our beliefs act as a filter in helping us decide what the events mean and how important they are for us.  So can you see that your beliefs control the effects these events have on you in later life?

I’ll give you an example.  Have you noticed how football fans respond differently when a goal is scored?  The home supporters see a goal by their team as great news – they jump about and celebrate.  What’s driving their behaviour?  Their feelings – they feel happy, perhaps ecstatic.  And what’s driving their feelings?  The idea that the goal is good news for them.  And why do they believe it’s good news?  Because they identify themselves with the home team – “I am a so-and-so-team supporter”.  In other words – and here’s the important bit – their sense of identity (who they think they are) controls their response.

Meanwhile the away fan sees the goal differently.  His body may slump and he might hold his head in his hands.  Emotionally, he may feel despondent.  Behind his emotions he’ll be thinking this is bad news.  Why?  Because, like the home supporters, he identifies with his team.

Can you therefore see that the physical event – scoring of a goal in this example – has no fixed meaning?  The meaning we give it depends on our point of view.  And that’s largely driven by our sense of identity.  That is, who we think we are – the words that come after “I am…”  But our sense of identity is founded on beliefs.  What are beliefs?  They are ideas we hold to be true – which makes them powerful for as long as we don’t question them.

So to be clear, the environment doesn’t shape us.  It’s how we perceive our environment that shapes us because it drives the meaning and significance we give to events.  What decides how we perceive events and therefore what we learn from them?  Our beliefs.

Who is responsible for creating or accepting new beliefs into your mind?  You are.  But who are you?

According to the psychological model in my book, The Three Levels of Leadership, you are a Self.  A Self is a creative centre of consciousness; a centre of pure will, pure imagination and pure self-awareness; a centre of potential, but not of content.  You create “content” – for example a self-identity – in your mind.  So it’s you, the Self, who decides – through the mental filter that is your sense of identity – what to make of your environment.  Thus, you are responsible for your perceptions, not what’s happening around you.

Learning

It’s also you, the Self, that learns how to lead.

Learning is important because it’s one thing to have inborn leadership potential and quite another to realise it.  How do people realise their leadership potential?  By learning through advice, observation and experience plus more conscious learning like reading, training or coaching.

Your learning will depend on four things.  First, what’s happening around you and the opportunities and obstacles it throws up.  Second, what you make of events (your perceptions).  Third, your sense of purpose.  And fourth, your desire to learn how to lead and the effort you put into your learning.

So yes, some leadership characteristics are there at birth, but they are not fully “installed” to use your word again.  As you suspected, the environment also plays a part.  But so do a person’s beliefs – above all the beliefs making up your (the Self’s) self-identity – because they control how you perceive your environment.  And don’t forget, the budding leader still has to bridge the gap between potential and realisation by learning how to lead.

Three Forces

To summarise, I’m saying a leader’s development is partly nature (30%), partly nurture (one’s environment) and partly down to the Self’s creative ability to be the architect of its life. 

This third force is the one most commentators overlook.  It shows as the beliefs you hold (above all, about your sense of identity), the meaning you place on your experiences, the aims you set for yourself, the choices you make and the effort you put into your learning.

[* The 2006 research I refer to above is by Arvey, Johnson, Rotundo, Zhang and McGue.]

 

The author of this blog is James Scouller, an executive coach.  His book, The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill, was published by Management Books 2000 in May 2011.  You can learn more about it at www.three-levels-of-leadership.com.  If you want to see its reviews, click here: leadership book reviews.  If you want to know where to buy it, click HERE.